JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. 1. Heard Mr. I. A. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. M. S. Mazumdar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent no.1. 2. The petitioners, by way of instituting the present criminal petition, has presented a challenge to an order dated 29-11-2022, by which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, in Complaint case being C.R.No.70/2022, had taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC against the petitioners and directed issuance of summons to them. The petitioners have also challenged an order dated 28-03-2022, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, rejecting the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer in G.R. Case no.2300/2014. 3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present petition is noticed as under: An FIR came to be lodged by the respondent no.1, herein, as informant on 30-05- 2014 before the Officer-in-Charge, Katigorah P.S, inter alia, alleging that on the same day at about 6.30 pm, the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 had come to the house of his younger brother, Abdul Rouf and had taken him to the shop of the petitioner no.1, situated at Malidahar. It was further stated therein, that while leaving for Malidahar, his brother Abdul Rouf had told his wife Munna Begum about the same. It is further alleged that at around 8.00 pm, his younger brother Abdul Mannan was informed over phone that their brother Abdul Rouf was lying injured near the shop of the petitioner no.1 and his ambassador car was found nearby. It was further stated in the FIR that on getting the information, the respondent no.1 along with his parental cousin and other persons went to the place of occurrence and on the way at Gumrah Bazar, they found petitioner no.1 sitting in his white colour Bolero car and when enquired about Abdul Rouf, the petitioner no.1 stated that Abdul Rouf's ambassador might have met with an accident. On further search, Abdul Rouf was found in an injured condition and it was alleged that there were marks of injuries in his entire body caused by sharp weapons. It was further stated that Abdul Rouf was rushed to the Kalain Hospital for treatment and on reaching the hospital, the doctor declared Abdul Rouf as dead. On further search, Abdul Rouf was found in an injured condition and it was alleged that there were marks of injuries in his entire body caused by sharp weapons. It was further stated that Abdul Rouf was rushed to the Kalain Hospital for treatment and on reaching the hospital, the doctor declared Abdul Rouf as dead. The said FIR was registered as Katigorah P.S. Case No.191/2014 under Section 302/34. The Investigating Officer during the investigation got the statements of 5 witnesses including the informant recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The witnesses had implicated the petitioners, herein, however, the Investigating Officer proceeded to submit a final report vide F.R No.267/2017 dated 26-09-2017, inter alia, holding therein, that there was no evidence found to establish the charge under Section 302/34 IPC against the petitioners, herein. In the said final report, it was also projected that the death of Abdul Rouf had occasioned while he along with his associate Saber Ahmed Talukdar were committing theft of iron plates of old Malidahar abandoned bridge situated at Malidahar. It was further projected that at the time for commission of the theft, the two persons had driven out the connecting bolts to detach the iron plates of the bridge resulting in the bridge collapsing and Abdul Rouf falling on a hard rocky surface of the riverbed resulting in instant accidental death of Abdul Rouf and injuries to his associate Saber Ahmed Talukdar. The respondent no.1 on receiving notice with regard to the final report submitted in the matter by the Investigating Officer submitted his objection in writing, inter alia, alleging therein, that the investigation of the matter was not done properly by the Investigating Officer, and the final report was filed casually. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, on examination of the matter proceeded vide order dated 23.08.2018, noticing the lacunas existing in the investigation, directed for a further investigation in the matter. The final report accordingly was not accepted at that stage. The Investigating Officer in terms of the direction passed vide order dated 23-08-2018 proceeded to carry out further investigation in the matter and on conclusion of the same again submitted a final report being F.R. No.124/2020 dated 30-06-2020, holding that no material had come on record to establish the charge under Section 302/34 IPC against the petitioners, herein. The Investigating Officer in terms of the direction passed vide order dated 23-08-2018 proceeded to carry out further investigation in the matter and on conclusion of the same again submitted a final report being F.R. No.124/2020 dated 30-06-2020, holding that no material had come on record to establish the charge under Section 302/34 IPC against the petitioners, herein. A reference was again made to the factum of death of Abdul Rouf to be on account of the accident occasioning while committing theft by him and his associate of the iron plates of the old and abandoned Bailey bridge at Malidahar. Being aggrieved with the final report submitted in the matter, the respondent no.1 submitted a protest petition. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, on considering the materials available in the Case Diary as well as considering the contents of the objection petition, the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer was not accepted. The protest petition was directed to be registered as a complaint case. Accordingly, complaint case being CR.No.70/2022 came to be registered in the matter. The complaint case being registered, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, proceeded to examine the respondent no.1, herein, as complainant on 27-04-2022 under Section 200 CrPC. Thereafter, 4 (four) witnesses produced by the complainant, i.e., the respondent no. 1, herein, were examined under Section 202 CrPC on 29-07-2022, 20-09-2022 and 29-11-2022. On conclusion of the examination of the complainant and his witnesses, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, vide order dated 29-11-2022, having found a prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners, herein, for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, proceeded to take cognizance of the offence under the said provisions against the petitioners, herein, and summons were directed to the issued to the petitioners, herein. It is in the backdrop of the said factual matrix that the present criminal petition has been instituted assailing the order dated 28.03.2022 and the order dated 29.11.2022. 4. Mr. I. A. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset has submitted that the police on investigation of the matter, having not found any material to establish the charge under Section 302/34, had submitted a final report in the case on 26-09-2017. He further submits that after the order dated 23-08-2018 directing for a further investigation in the matter, a further FR was submitted on 30-06-2020 on the same lines. Mr. He further submits that after the order dated 23-08-2018 directing for a further investigation in the matter, a further FR was submitted on 30-06-2020 on the same lines. Mr. I. A. Hazarika, submits that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, without properly appreciating the disclosures made in the final report submitted in the matter, mechanically basing on the objection petition filed by the respondent no.1, proceeded to issue the order dated 28-03-2022, rejecting the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer. He further submits that the direction for registration of the protest petition as a complaint case is also devoid of any reasoning. Mr. I. A. Hazarika, by referring to the statements of the respondent no.1 and the other witnesses examined by the Magistrate under Section 200 CrPC and also under Section 202 CrPC, submits that the same does not bring on record any incriminating material against the petitioners, herein, and accordingly the learned Additional CJM, Cachar, Silchar, ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC against the petitioners, herein. Mr. I. A. Hazarika, further submits that the protest petition as filed by the respondent no. 1, herein, does not satisfy the requirement under Section 2 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly it was not permissible for the Magistrate to treat the protest petition as a complaint and accordingly the Magistrate ought not to have proceeded under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the matter. Mr. I. A. Hazarika, by referring to the post-mortem report, has submitted that the death of Abdul Rouf was disclosed therein, to have occasioned due to head injuries which were caused by impact of blunt force, which again corroborates with the projection made in the final report of the death being occasioned due to injuries sustained by the deceased while committing theft of iron plates of the abandoned Bailey Bridge at Malidahar. He submits that in connection with the theft of the iron plates, an FIR was lodged which was registered as Katigorah P.S. Case No. 299/2014 and a charge-sheet being charge-sheet No.233/2014 was submitted against Abdul Rouf and his associate under Sections 379/511 IPC. 5. In the above premises, Mr. He submits that in connection with the theft of the iron plates, an FIR was lodged which was registered as Katigorah P.S. Case No. 299/2014 and a charge-sheet being charge-sheet No.233/2014 was submitted against Abdul Rouf and his associate under Sections 379/511 IPC. 5. In the above premises, Mr. I. A. Hazarika, submits that the order dated 29-11- 2022 passed by the learned Additional CJM, Cachar, Silchar, taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners under Section 302/34 IPC and directing for issuance of summons to them would not be sustainable and would mandate an interference from this Court. 6. Per contra, Mr. A. M. S. Mazumdar, submits that the Investigating Officer had not conducted the investigation in a proper manner and had submitted the final report dated 26-09-2017, which was however not accepted by the Magistrate and a direction for a further investigation came to be issued in the matter vide order dated 23-08- 2018. He further submits that the second final report submitted in the matter after re- investigation also reveals that no re-investigation in the matter was carried out in the manner required and the investigation was closed only by projecting the involvement of the accused in the theft of the iron plates of the abandoned Bailey Bridge at Mahalidar and his death occasioning while committing the said offence. He further submits that a perusal of the second final report dated 30.06.2020 and a perusal of the same would also reveal that investigation was not carried out in the manner required. Mr. A. M. S. Mazumder, has submitted that the statements of the informant and the witnesses recorded under Section 164 CrPC clearly implicates the petitioners, herein, of commission of an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. Mr. Mazumder, further submits that the investigation in the matter was not carried out by the Investigating Officer in the manner required and had proceeded to hold that no materials had come on record to establish the charge under Section 302/34 IPC against the petitioners, herein, without properly appreciating the statements of the witnesses and also the injuries sustained by the deceased Abdul Rouf. Mr. Mr. Mazumder, further submits that the FIR lodged against the deceased Abdul Rouf and his associate was so lodged after more than 2(two) months from the date of death of said Abdul Rouf and he submits that the said FIR was so lodged to give a colour of an accidental death while the death of Abdul Rouf was infact a murder. He further submits that the Magistrate after directing for registration of the protest petition submitted by the respondent no.1 as a Complaint case had examined the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and witnesses under Section 202 CrPC and it is only thereafter that the order dated 29.11.2022, taking cognizance of the offence of the petitioner under Section 302/34 IPC came to be so passed. He submits that there is no error committed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, in passing the order dated 29.11.2022 and the same would not mandate any interference from this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. The facts noticed hereinabove are not in dispute. Upon submission of the second FR dated 30.06.2020, in pursuance to the direction passed by the learned Additional CJM, Cachar, Silchar, vide order dated 23.08.2018, for causing a further investigation, a protest petition came to be filed by the informant. A perusal of the said protest petition reveals that the same contains all requisite materials for drawing a conclusion with regard to the commission of an offence by the petitioners, herein, under Section 302/34 IPC. A complaint is defined under provisions of Section 2 (d) of the Code as follows: "2. (d) "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Explanation. A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant;" 9. Explanation. A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant;" 9. It is a settled position of law that if a protest petition fulfills the requirement of complaint, the Magistrate may treat the protest petition as a complaint and deal with the same as required under Section 200 CrPC r/w Section 202 CrPC of the Code. 10. Having considered the details of allegations made in the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as materials on which the petitioner placed reliance, the learned Magistrate, in the considered opinion of this Court committed no error in summoning the accused persons. At the stage of cognizance and summoning, the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not. 11. It is also well settled that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender Hence at the stage of framing of charge an individual accused may seek discharge if he or she can show that the materials are absolutely insufficient for framing of the charge against that particular accused. But such exercise is required only at a later stage, as indicated above and not at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning the accused on the basis of prima facie case. Even at the stage of framing of charge, the sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not the requirement and a prayer for discharge can be allowed only if the Court finds that the materials are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial. Even at the stage of framing of charge, the sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not the requirement and a prayer for discharge can be allowed only if the Court finds that the materials are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial. It is also a settled proposition of law that even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against an accused, the Court will be justified in rejecting a prayer for discharge and in granting an opportunity to the prosecution to bring on record the entire evidence in accordance with law so that case of both the sides may be considered appropriately on conclusion of trial. 12. It is a settled position of law that a Magistrate can ignore the conclusions arrived at by the Investigating Officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, exercise his powers under Section 190 (1) (b) and direct the issue of process to the accused. However, the Magistrate is not bound in such situation to follow the procedure laid down in Section 200 and Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for taking cognizance of a case under Section 190 (1) (a), though it is open to him to act under Section 200 or Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On receipt of the police report under Section 173 CrPC, the Magistrate can exercise 3 (three) options; Firstly, he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action. Secondly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process; and thirdly. be may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Zunaid Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. , 2023 (14) SCC 576 on an issue similar to the one arising in the present proceedings had concluded as follows: “12. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the CJM concerned vide the detailed order passed on 15-11-2018 had rejected the final report submitted by the investigating officer and had accepted the protest petition, and decided to proceed further under Section 200 CrPC. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the CJM concerned vide the detailed order passed on 15-11-2018 had rejected the final report submitted by the investigating officer and had accepted the protest petition, and decided to proceed further under Section 200 CrPC. Such a course opted by the CJM was absolutely just, legal and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The said order dated 15-11-2018 remained unchallenged at the instance of the respondent-accused. It was only when the CJM concerned after recording the statements of the complainant and eight witnesses, issued summons on 11-1-2022, the respondents filed the application challenging the said order dated 11-1-2022 under Section 482 before the High Court, and in the said application, the order dated 15-11-2018 came to be challenged by way of amendment.” 14. Accordingly, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, having refused to accept the final report submitted that by the Investigation Officer vide order dated 28.03.2022 and directed for registering the protest petition as a complaint case, no error can be found with the said decision arrived at by the learned Magistrate in the matter. The Magistrate having directed for registration of the protest petition as a complaint case had followed the procedure as prescribed under Section 200 and Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had thereafter basing on the evidences coming on record also considering the case records had proceeded vide order dated 29.11.2022 to take cognizance of the matter of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC against the petitioners, herein. 15. The said course of action as taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, being a permissible course of action, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that no infirmity is found in the order dated 29.11.2012 passed by learned Additional Chief Judical Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, in C.R. Case No.70/2022. Further on perusal of the materials brought on record, this Court is of the prima facie view that no error is committed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, in not accepting the FR report submitted by the Investigating Officer vide order dated 28.03.2022 and the same would also not mandate an interference. 16. Further on perusal of the materials brought on record, this Court is of the prima facie view that no error is committed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, in not accepting the FR report submitted by the Investigating Officer vide order dated 28.03.2022 and the same would also not mandate an interference. 16. The Investigating Officer as well as the petitioners in the present petition, in support of their submission for acceptance of the FR report submitted in the matter had placed reliance on the charge-sheet submitted by the police against the deceased and his co-accused in Katigorah P.S. Case No.299/2014 vide charge-sheet no.233/2014 dated 30.11.2014, this Court is of the considered view that the same would be an issue which would be considered during the Trial and is not permissible to be taken note at this stage while examining the challenge to the cognizance taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, vide order dated 29.11.2022 against the petitioners of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. 17. In view of the above discussion and also considering the materials brought on record, this Court finds no infirmity with the conclusions drawn by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, vide the impugned orders dated 28.03.2022 and the order dated 29.11.2022, this Court finds that the procedure mandated under the provisions of the Chapter XV of the Code was duly complied with by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, prior to passing of the impugned order dated 29.11.2022. 18. In view of the above discussion, the present criminal petition is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The interim order passed vide order dated 26.04.2023 stands vacated. 19. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, to expeditiously consider the C.R. Case No.70/2022 strictly in accordance with law. 20. The present criminal petition accordingly stands dismissed.